A computational framework for modeling and studying pertussis epidemiology and vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases such as Zika, SARS, ncovid19 and Pertussis, pose a compelling challenge for epidemiologists due to their significant impact on global public health. In this context, computational models and computer simulations are one of the available research tools that epidemiologists can exploit to better understand the spreading characteristics of these diseases and to decide on vaccination policies, human interaction controls, and other social measures to counter, mitigate or simply delay the spread of the infectious diseases. Nevertheless, the construction of mathematical models for these diseases and their solutions remain a challenging tasks due to the fact that little effort has been devoted to the definition of a general framework easily accessible even by researchers without advanced modelling and mathematical skills. RESULTS: In this paper we describe a new general modeling framework to study epidemiological systems, whose novelties and strengths are: (1) the use of a graphical formalism to simplify the model creation phase; (2) the implementation of an R package providing a friendly interface to access the analysis techniques implemented in the framework; (3) a high level of portability and reproducibility granted by the containerization of all analysis techniques implemented in the framework; (4) a well-defined schema and related infrastructure to allow users to easily integrate their own analysis workflow in the framework. Then, the effectiveness of this framework is showed through a case of study in which we investigate the pertussis epidemiology in Italy. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a new general modeling framework for the analysis of epidemiological systems, which exploits Petri Net graphical formalism, R environment, and Docker containerization to derive a tool easily accessible by any researcher even without advanced mathematical and computational skills. Moreover, the framework was implemented following the guidelines defined by Reproducible Bioinformatics Project so it guarantees reproducible analysis and makes simple the developed of new user-defined workflows.

Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) - 0.51 [- 0.81, - 0.20], p = 0.001; MD - 2.91 min [- 5.47, - 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.

CELESTIA: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin Versus Sitagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Greece.

Purpose: Globally, the prevalence of diabetes is on the rise, with the number of affected individuals predicted to cross 700 million by 2045. In Greece, in 2015, almost 700,000 people received prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes. The CELESTIA study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin compared to branded sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients both with and without established cardiovascular disease in Greece from a third payer perspective. Methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used and analyses were conducted from the Greek healthcare payer perspective. Patients received either empagliflozin or sitagliptin until HbA1c threshold of 8.5% (69 mmol/mol) was exceeded. Subsequently, patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from clinical trial data. Literature data were used for input (utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications costs). A lifetime time horizon (50 years) was applied, and costs and benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, for empagliflozin, the estimated ICER was of €6,587 and €966 per quality-adjusted life years gained versus sitagliptin, in patients without established cardiovascular disease and in patients with established cardiovascular disease, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the analysis. Conclusion: The analysis demonstrated that for type 2 diabetes patients, empagliflozin is a cost-effective treatment option versus branded sitagliptin in Greece.

State-of-the-art review on AL amyloidosis in Western Countries: Epidemiology, health economics, risk assessment and therapeutic management of a rare disease.

Amyloidosis is the term to define a broad array of rare protein misfolding syndromes. Among them, light chain (AL) amyloidosis is the most common, affecting roughly 10 people per million/year. The core purpose of the present literature review is to shed light on the academic and clinical knowledge on the condition, encompassing its i) epidemiology, ii) economic burden, and iii) quality of life consequences. The areas of interest are Europe and North America. Literature search was primarily performed on Embase® and finally integrated with additional, deemed eligible, sources. Pre-defined PICOS criteria were employed for the inclusion and exclusion processes. A total of 64 studies were comprehensively included in the current literature review as compliant with the inclusion criteria. The results were presented according to the outcomes of interest and eventually triangulated and compared to available literature studies. A broad picture on the main aspects of AL amyloidosis is delivered.

Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of Cemiplimab in Patients with Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Italy.

PURPOSE: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is a common cancer that in most cases is curable with surgery. About 3-5% of patients develop advanced CSCC (aCSCC) and are no longer responsive to surgery or radiation therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of cemiplimab, the first systemic therapy approved in Italy for patients with aCSCC, vs platinum-based chemotherapy from the Italian National Health Service (SSN) perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model, which included three mutually exclusive health states, was developed to estimate costs and outcomes for patients with aCSCC, over a 30-year time horizon (lifetime). No direct evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of cemiplimab versus other therapies currently exists. Therefore, a simulated treatment comparison (STC) was conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of cemiplimab versus chemotherapy. Individual patient data for cemiplimab were collected from the EMPOWER-CSCC 1 trial whereas chemotherapy data were derived from a retrospective study. In the STC a regression model was used to predict outcomes for cemiplimab in the population observed in the comparator study. Costs of drug acquisition/administration and management of adverse events were included. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were calculated; sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: In the base-case, treatment with cemiplimab was associated with a gain of 4.89 LYs and 3.99 QALYs, compared with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, resulting in an estimated ICER of 27,821 €/LY gained and an ICUR of 34,110 €/QALY gained. Both ICER and ICUR were below the commonly used Italian SSN willingness to pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: The use of cemiplimab, compared with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, can be considered a cost-effective option for the treatment of aCSCC patients in Italy.